MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970909790 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1907775

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction

2019· article· en· W2970909790 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shamir R. Mehta, David Wood, Robert F. Storey, Roxana Mehran, Kevin R. Bainey, Helen Nguyen, Brandi Meeks, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, José López-Sendón, David P. Faxon, Laura Mauri, Sunil V. Rao, Laurent J. Feldman, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Álvaro Avezum, Tej Sheth, Natalia Pinilla‐Echeverri, Raúl Moreno, Gianluca Campo, Benjamin Wrigley, Saško Kedev, Andrew G.C. Sutton, Richard Oliver, Josep Rodés‐Cabau, Goran Stanković, Robert C. Welsh, Shahar Lavi, Warren J. Cantor, Jia Wang, Juliet Nakamya, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, John A. Cairns

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster University
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchServierDaiichi-SankyoIdorsia PharmaceuticalsBritish Heart FoundationJanssen Scientific AffairsClaret MedicalAbbott VascularAbbott LaboratoriesRegeneron PharmaceuticalsAmarin CorporationBoston Scientific CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyCSL BehringAstraZenecaAmgenPfizerSanofi
KeywordsConventional PCICardiologyMedicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicinePercutaneous coronary interventionCulpritRevascularization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P = 0.62 and P = 0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations913
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207